First insurrectionist removed from office under 14th amendment

[Faun]

Why’s did your like kind mind dispute she was unarmed??
Oh I see, armed with”intent”

Who disputed she wad unarmed??

Are you reading-impaired?

 

[Lastamender]

You are a lousy troll. Try something new.

 

[Faun]

You are a lousy troll. Try something new.

 

[Foxfyre]

I posted an article that stated Oath Keepers were protecting some Trump allies, like Roger Stone & Michael Flynn.

Denying that doesn't help your position.

You posted a highly partisan and biased opinion piece that Oath Keeper were protecting some Trump allies. Their own 'evidence' was texts or whatever discussing that without providing any evidence of those texts or whatever. Who exactly were they supposed to be protecting Stone and Flynn from?

I did not say such texts/evidence does not exist. I don't know. Neither do you. But even if it does, it does not implicate Trump and the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters. I do not believe either Stone nor Flynn were at the Capitol on Jan 6 however. If they had been it would be featured prominently in all the anti-Trump publicity stemming from the Jan 6 riot.

Couy Griffin was there, freely admits he was there, there are photos of him being there, but he took no part in the riot and in fact was leading prayer trying to cool down the situation.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You guys keep bitching about what an insurrection is, saying that the participants have to be organized, or armed, or any number of other things. Let's clear that stuff up right now, as here is the definition according to US law.........................

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

That doesn’t define insurrection.

 

[Faun]

You posted a highly partisan and biased opinion piece that Oath Keeper were protecting some Trump allies. Their own 'evidence' was texts or whatever discussing that without providing any evidence of those texts or whatever. Who exactly were they supposed to be protecting Stone and Flynn from?

I did not say such texts/evidence does not exist. I don't know. Neither do you. But even if it does, it does not implicate Trump and the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters. I do not believe either Stone nor Flynn were at the Capitol on Jan 6 however. If they had been it would be featured prominently in all the anti-Trump publicity stemming from the Jan 6 riot.

Couy Griffin was there, freely admits he was there, there are photos of him being there, but he took no part in the riot and in fact was leading prayer trying to cool down the situation.

I have no idea who they were protecting them from -- but they were still there protecting them.

 

[Foxfyre]

You guys keep bitching about what an insurrection is, saying that the participants have to be organized, or armed, or any number of other things. Let's clear that stuff up right now, as here is the definition according to US law.........................

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

That does not in any way define what 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' is.

The U.S. Constitution however does state:
AMENDMENT 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Jan 6 rally was planned to be a PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY of 10s of thousands of people who were petitioning their government for a redress of grievances. And it was for that purpose that Couy Griffin was there.

That a relatively small number of idiots, people who didn't even attend the rally, decided to riot does not change that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no idea who they were protecting them from -- but they were still there protecting them.

Really? Protecting them when neither were on the Capitol grounds? Where is you evidence they were there protecting anybody? The people who rioted were stupid and served the MAGA cause and their President miserably and destructively. There is no reason to believe their planning and rhetoric, if that even in fact exists, was any different.

 

[Lastamender]

I have no idea who they were protecting them from -- but they were still there protecting them.

Because your bullshit sources say so? The people you believe have been caught in lie after lie. Only an extremely stupid or extrememly dishonest anti-American SOB would continue to believe them. They have 0 credibility like the FBI and the DoJ.

 

[AZrailwhale]

LOL

Imbecile, Trump homself said he wanted to go with them. There's even been sworn testimony he was irate with Secret Service for not letting him go with them.

And exactly what is wrong with a sitting president wanting to take part in a peaceful protest? When Trump wanted to go to the Capital, that’s exactly what was going on. And since when can’t the president enter the Capital building?

 

[Faun]

Really? Protecting them when neither were on the Capitol grounds? Where is you evidence they were there protecting anybody? The people who rioted were stupid and served the MAGA cause and their President miserably and destructively. There is no reason to believe their planning and rhetoric, if that even in fact exists, was any different.

First They Guarded Roger Stone. Then They Joined the Capitol Attack.

 

[Faun]

Because your bullshit sources say so? The people you believe have been caught in lie after lie. Only an extremely stupid or extrememly dishonest anti-American SOB would continue to believe them. They have 0 credibility like the FBI and the DoJ.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Hes a traitor.

And you are a fucking idiot, you post the stupidest shit constantly

 

[AZrailwhale]

Of course I didn't say he planned to break through the door. With his ego, he would have expected to be welcomed in. Again, for what reason other than going inside would he want to go to the Capitol to "stop the steal?"

How about attempting to persuade the legislators to delay certification on the election pending a real investigation of his claims? In fact the president, ANY president, should be expected to be welcomed into the Capital, after all he welcomes the leaders of the legislative branch into the White House all the time. Hell, the President of the Senate has an office in the White House.

 

[WEATHER53]

Attempting to persuade is double subjective “crime charge”

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Buildings are not the government. What legislation do buildings pass?

Well then, based on that standard, the capital building is just that, a building, and the January 6th people just broke into a building. Right?

What laws do the bricks and doors of the capital building pass?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You are highly partisan. People who dont respect elections should not hold office.

I agree. We're going to start removing Democrats in 2 months

 

[Foxfyre]

First They Guarded Roger Stone. Then They Joined the Capitol Attack.

There was nothing to guard Roger Stone from at the time though Stone and his family have been subjected to numerous death threats from the 'peaceful' left. The photos of him with some presumed Oathkeepers was in front of his hotel hours before the riot on 1/6. He said he didn't know any of them, knew of no plans to 'attack' the Capitol and was in his DC hotel when it happened. He was told they were to provide him security which he had not asked for. There is no evidence any of the Oathkeepers went inside his hotel. Presumption of 'guarding him' is pretty thin.

And because it was so out of place for the Oathkeepers to be concerned about Roger Stone's safety, this kind of thing really does lend itself to conspiracy theories of whether it was a set up to use to smear Trump after the riot. For instance I've seen many photos of Oathkeeper gatherings and have never seen them have their faces covered until Jan 6. That strikes me as odd.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are highly partisan. People who dont respect elections should not hold office.

Do you apply that standard to Democrats? Those who held up election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016 claiming election meddling/fraud? To Pelosi who called President Trump an illegitimate President, etc.? Remember SCOTUS had to intervene in the 'hanging chads' silliness in Florida?

"WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome."

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

The former Democratic presidential nominee predicted Republicans could try to “mess up absentee balloting” for a narrow advantage in the Electoral College.

www.nbcnews.com

Here's a Long List of Prominent Democrats Refusing to Accept Election Results

townhall.com

Given the many instances of possible fraud caught on camera and testified to by poll watchers, was Couy Griffin so terrible to want the election certification delayed until the investigations could be completed?

 

[ABikerSailor]

That doesn’t define insurrection.

That does not in any way define what 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' is.

The U.S. Constitution however does state:
AMENDMENT 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Jan 6 rally was planned to be a PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY of 10s of thousands of people who were petitioning their government for a redress of grievances. And it was for that purpose that Couy Griffin was there.

That a relatively small number of idiots, people who didn't even attend the rally, decided to riot does not change that.

Are you guys reading impaired? That is the definition of insurrection according to the USC.

And Foxfyre, they may have started out planning to be peaceful, but the end result was anything but (unless you consider threatening to hang Pence and Pelosi, breaking windows, stealing things and stuff like that "peaceful".)